In case you're genuinely interested, see wiki[0] for an overview of the evidence of parity and controversy.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_me...

No, because violence towards women in relationships is not higher than it is towards men. In fact, it's almost 50:50.

What percentage of relationships include violence? I doubt this is a strong explanation for the difference stated in the article.

I hate to be dismissive, but literally google your own question. Start here https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

Actually it was up to the original poster to give the numbers. He was right to ask. You can't prove your point and hope that everyone will know the numbers you are relying on to prove your point.

Moreover, you original question suggets that you didn't read the published article.

That does not include per relationship statistics.

Are you talking about physical violence or psychological violence? If you are talking about total violence, then I'd argue they are about the same.

That's incorrect.

It’s worth considering that although the absolute incidence of violence female->male is higher, common sense dictates that the incidence of terrifying and potentially seriously injurious violence is much higher male->female, which is why more concern is directed at it.

"common sense" isn't the best justification, as plenty of studies provide empirical evidence of exactly that. Iirc there's near parity in general IPV but something like a 2:1 ratio in grievous bodily harm, with even higher ratios when it comes to outright murder.

That would work the other way, as more men are physically abused by their partners than the other way around.

Got a source for that?

Had read the paper but didn't keep a link: it was a fairly uncontroversial one that more men reported being physically/psychologically abused in relationships, but of lower intensity/lethality. Im sure you can find it.